Russkie: I know a story (told by skdiver "buddies") of somebody who went to Russia to pick up a chopper that was being sold. The engine accidentally
went on while they were testing, no tail rotor, the thing upped flipped over, hurling the guy out. He had a lit cigarette in his mouth the whole time,
and the rescue busybodies found him lying on his back, contemplating the sky - still with the cigarette in his mouth.

F-22: the various sims I've played with make the aircraft behave in a very odd fashion. It can stand on its tail (but not very well) and you have an
alpha indicator on your HUD. I've never seen it go above about 14 degrees but then I never got into many dogfights and high-G maneuvers. The most I
do is a 45-degree zig-zag to dodge the odd Atoll which works about 80% of the time, 95% if you do it properly. The Su-35s seem to shrug off an AMRAAM
about 50% of the time and laugh at AIM-9s. Mind you, the game (Novalogic's F-22 Lightning III) may be weighted to make it more fun.

Excerpts: "Q. Will those "super-maneuvers" remain a distinguishing feature of the new Russian aircraft? It seems that there are no foreign fighters
capable of executing them.

As of today, there are no comparable aircraft in the world, no series-built aircraft that would have similar capabilities to the Su-37 and the
Su-30MK. The issue is not the very existence of moving nozzles on an airplane. The issue is that our aircraft can maneuver considerably better than
its foreign counterparts. All the other series-built fighters maneuver "normally," in other words, by changing their flight trajectory, whereas
our Su-30MK and Su-37, which are in series production and being delivered to military units, can maneuver without changing their flight trajectory and
do it without limitations on speed and angle of attack.

Q. But this is again the same old question about the difference between long-distance missile engagement and dogfights. The Americans believe that
long-range radar-guided missiles are the key to air superiority. It that so?

I think that only life can prove or disprove this. The Americans have somewhat larger experience of conducting massive air operations. They recently
had a massive air campaign in the Persian Gulf, for instance. But in fact they did not meet a strong response in the recent local wars, including that
in the Gulf, and air engagements were rare. This fact gives the Americans the base to assert that they have powerful means of monitoring the airspace
- "we see everything, we know everything" - so that they think they can begin an air campaign with shooting down as many enemy aircraft as we see at
long distances. That works in Persian Gulf conflicts, but should it be a real well-organized response from the enemy, the control lines could get
destroyed or jammed, leading to a collapse of the whole system. That will happen if the enemy possesses powerful electronic countermeasure systems to
jam radars. In that situation, two fighter flying towards each other will cover the distance of 100-150 km, which is a launch range for modern
radar-guided missiles, in three minutes. If they do not make well-planned evasive actions, the likelihood that they would end up in a dog-fight is
high. Of course, in a massive air campaign a number of aircraft from each side could be shot down at long distances, but those pilots who survived
will be drawn into a dogfight with their opposing counterparts. And in this situation super-agile aircraft will have the advantage. Surely, in the
future the long-range missiles will be the decisive factor - we will finally come to that. But today it is too early to drop the dogfight from
consideration.

Again, the difference in philosophies and air doctrines.
This is a very good article and I salute Victor Pugatchev, among others.

You did bring up a lot of good points, seekerof. But I think my cobra manuever mention was misunderstood.

I mainly brought that point up to show that Russian fighters are just that agile. Like somebody said, those fighters can almost turn on their tails.
Think an F-15C can do that?

It's good to hear there was no Russian bashing involved in your comments. I'll leave it at that.

But on a slightly different note, the Russian Air Force would lose to the U.S. Air Force. Not because they have inferior forces, but because
technically, there is not Russian Air Force. It's so disorganized it's like a mercenary force.

Personnally, the "cobra" maneuver looks nothing more than a "stall" maneuver with a high AOA...and as applied to the Mig-29, etc., that AOA can be
120 degrees. Again, a maneuver that very few pilots can actually do safely, without tearing the plane apart and killing themselves in the process.
Hell, a F-14 can do that and do it in a 60 degree AOA.

The maneuver can claim to be "this and that" but it amounts to no real consequence in an actual a2a combat situation. The US is building aircraft,
F-22 and F-35, that are made to avoid such a2a engagements to the point of being BVR engagements. I hope that "cobra" and "super cobra" maneuver
can save them from a a2a missile such as the US AIM-9x which can literally do a 90 degree turn to hit its target......Oppps....splash another......

regards
seekerof
very nice seekrof and i like the picture, where you get that pic? any info on it?

The new version of the "Cobra" is called the "Stop Cobra" since it translates to around 140° and then holds it there for around 4 to 10 seconds,
all this at around 500 to 800 feet AGL, or higher depending upon who is watching. With rudders or through the slight asymmetric run of the thrust, the
nose will start to drift. The Su can simply counter the drift with stick action or roll to match the axis of drift and then pull back up, or roll
inverted and pull down, or hold his nose position.

The pilot could easily follow and point his nose at any conventional aircraft flying the "egg" around him and never have to extend his relative turn
radius more than 200 to 500 meters. All this while manning his weapon system, helmet sight, gun, and missiles. In other words, the ultimate
"knife-fight". If he is attacked from multiple directions his defensive warning system and rear-firing Archers are expected to work the problem.

BTW : This special cobra is now being extensively practised by IAF Su-30MKI's.

I think that these types of manuvers are less important in the plane vs. plane scenario then the plane vs. missile scenario.
If the super-manuverable Russian planes get enough manuverability to lose long-range missiles on a regular basis(not there yet I don't think but it
might) then all of a sudden the game changes dramatically. I know it seems unlikly given the size difference but the missiles also have to contend
with higher speeds and smaller control surfaces. Using chaff, ECM or whatever else is available these manuvers may become a make or break saving grace
vs. the heavier long-range missiles. The smaller short/medium range missiles would require more effort to outmanuver though.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
You did bring up a lot of good points, seekerof. But I think my cobra manuever mention was misunderstood.

I mainly brought that point up to show that Russian fighters are just that agile. Like somebody said, those fighters can almost turn on their tails.
Think an F-15C can do that?

It's good to hear there was no Russian bashing involved in your comments. I'll leave it at that.

But on a slightly different note, the Russian Air Force would lose to the U.S. Air Force. Not because they have inferior forces, but because
technically, there is not Russian Air Force. It's so disorganized it's like a mercenary force.

Well said.

I have my doubts as to whether "supermaneuverability" is all that useful in modern combat. The '91 gulf war showed that against an unprepared foe,
BVR missiles are unstoppable.

The combination of AWACS and long range missile can be very effective, yet there's always the risk of a swarm of [low
altitude|stealth|justplainfocusedanddeadly] fighters busting through the fighter screen, taking down the AWACS and then proceeding to own the
"superior" fighters in a dirty knife fight. To do this, one must (1) be willing to take losses (2) fight unconventionally.

MiGs in Vietnam had a tactic of "bushwhacking" Thuds by hiding low under the tropical cloudcover and popping up unexpectedly with guns and IR
missiles at close range.. Escorting F-4 Phantoms had neither the range nor the lookdown/shootdown to combat the bushwhackers.

I really like the F-22 and have a great deal of respect and admiration for stealth and BVR missiles, however, every war in history has shown that
unconventional tactics can give you an edge.

The longer Russia keeps pushing "supermaneiverability", the more conventional it will become. In conflicts where the USA/NATO/CIS is not involved,
it's going to be a plain old slugfest between (mostly) equaly equpped 3rd world combatants. As things stand right now, India would kick Pakinstan's
butt in a straight nuclear/conventional battle. Pakistan needs to either (1) get a more formidiable army or (2) get better WMD's. A handful of
nukes just doesn't cut it these days.

the cobra maneuver is a strategic one and it can be used in combat like this:

squadron of jets flies very fast to battlezone

aircraft that perfoms the cobra directs the infra-red beam on the target(s) for i.r.equiped guided bombs to be dropped from other normal flying
jets.
because of the exact and stable pinpointed i.r. beam there is a very high percentage the bombs will hit bull's eye.

after the attack all aircraft can leave full speed the battlefield.

as with all fighterjets burning fuel like hell any such operation comes into the normal window of 4 -7 minutes action on the battlefield.
plus flying to and from the target can include aerial refueling(s) ofcourse.

Originally posted by Amet Khan
As things stand right now, India would kick Pakinstan's butt in a straight nuclear/conventional battle. Pakistan needs to either (1) get a more
formidiable army or (2) get better WMD's. A handful of nukes just doesn't cut it these days.

True, Pakistan's defences are peanuts.Those guys got nothing.On the other hand India are very very well armed.Pakistan's confilct with India is
meaningless and self defeating.They should give up kashmir and shut up.

Here is an interesting excerept from an interview with Mikhail Simonov, the designer-general of the AOOT "OKB Sukhoi"

How is that that supermaneuverability leads to the reduction of the aircraft's visibility on the radar screen?

Supermaneuverability should be looked at as a system of maneuvers for close aerial combat. Once the pilot receives a signal that his plane is being
tracked by an enemy radar, the first thing he needs to do is to go vertical. While gaining altitude and losing speed the aircraft starts to disappear
from the screens of radars that use the Doppler effect. 10 However, the opponent is no fool either and will counter by pitching his aircraft upward as
well. By that time our plane is going vertical and its speed approaches zero. But all Doppler radars can recognize only a moving target. If the
aircraft speed is zero or simply low enough to prevent the enemy radar from calculating the Doppler component, for the enemy our aircraft will
disappear. He may still be able to track us visually, but he will not be able to launch a radar-guided missile (either active or semi-active), simply
because the missile's seeker would not pick-up the target.

Are there any other methods to make a plane invisible to a radar?

The so-called "stealth" aircraft are just beginning to emerge. The greatest impact of this new technology is expected for the fifth-generation
fighters.11 The first combat aircraft created using this stealth technology was the fighter-bomber F-117A. Although, the aircraft never became a
fighter.12 The aircraft had very low radar visibility but poor flying characteristics - a sort of a edgy flying steam iron (comprised of many flat
panels the aircraft would reflect the radar signal away from the receiver.)13

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.